Tuesday, December 23, 2008

The Conservative case for the Established Church of England

Cranmer has received numerous emails asking him to respond to Daniel Hannan MEP, who purports to make ‘the conservative case for disestablishment’. He was not going to, not least because this is the time of year when one should be full of good cheer, and the time to deeply appreciate the wonder of Christmas and the gift of the Church. But the reality is that there is such a dearth of non-nominal Anglicans (yes, Cranmer could have said ‘committed’, ‘dedicated’ or ‘believing’) on the Conservative benches that Mr Cameron ought to consider making them an approved-list priority along with the one-legged Muslim lesbians who will contribute so much to Westminster.

The Labour vultures of disestablishment are circling above the ashen English Church and fiercely advocate euthanasia to end its suffering. And none less than the Archbishop of Canterbury declares that it would be ‘by no means the end of the world if the Establishment disappears’. Into this destabilising fusion of Labour’s propensity for constitutional vandalism, the Archbishop’s ignorance of history and the Church’s theological ineptitude, Mr Hannan makes a small ‘c’ case for for small ‘c’ conservatives to support the Prime Minister’s continuation of Tony Blair’s ‘Year Zero’ agenda for the British Constitution. And his reasoning is essentially that the nationalisation of airlines, car manufacturers and banks has historically yielded nothing but complacency and inefficiency. Ergo the complacency and inefficiency of the Church of England is a product of its nationalisation.

This is too superficial an analysis and too dangerous a generalisation for any true Tory (or Whig) to make at this time.

It is wrong to assert, as Mr Hannan does, that ‘hostility to organised religion in general, and to the primacy of the Church of England in particular, is in the DNA of the British Left’. There are many on the Right who habitually deride the Church of England and earn their living by ridiculing its bishops and archbishops. They chant their sectarianism from the sidelines like Celtic fans, and blame the bishops for a lack of clear leadership. Yet where there is Anglican orthodoxy, it is derided for being ‘anti-Catholic’. Such hostility is much more deeply engrained in the DNA of some of the Roman Catholic Right who have a pathological loathing of the consequences of the Reformation and the ensuing via media of the Church of England than it is for anyone of the political Left to pontificate with their here-today gone-tomorrow crass agenda for ‘equality’.

Mr Hannan is persuaded that disestablishment is a Thatcherite pursuit, for it will create a ‘free market of denominations’ such that churches will ‘compete for congregations.’ And thus ‘those congregations in turn compete to raise their ministers' salaries’ resulting in full pews because ‘people are often more loyal to what they have chosen than to what they have been allocated’.

Cranmer hardly knows where to begin.

Empty pews are not a product of national ministry, but ineffectual leadership. As the Church’s leaders have been feeble in propounding its core beliefs, they have contributed to the perception that they are ashamed of the gospel of salvation. It is noteworthy that the Evangelical churches which have remained faithful to Scripture have grown while the liberal Anglican churches have seen falling attendance. The Church of England has lost the Right because it has pandered to and been occupied by the Left.

The Church of England should serve as a spiritual national health service. Any agenda to privatise it wholesale will yield all manner of blows which will see the end of England as a Christian nation in any sense. Setting aside the constitution (for Mr Hannan prefers to deal with economics), what would happen to the Church’s assets? How would one sell off Westminster Abbey, which presently belongs to the nation? And what if the highest bid came from the House of Saud? Would Mr Hannan be content to see this magnificent structure ‘enhanced’ with a minaret? How would he prevent this? Create another quango – Ofchurch – to ensure adherence to the conditions of sale? Does he propose that each church should produce glossy brochures and send them to parishioners – who would have ceased to be parishioners – in order to attract them to their life-giving spring with money-back guarantees of tasting the water of eternal life? Such is likely to lead to the worst aspects of pseudo-Christian spectacle, and church would become nothing but light entertainment (which, for many, it already is).

But to the theology.

Faith is a gift of God and a work of the Holy Spirit. It is not inculcated with a free-market approach or invigorated with competition or choice. To assert this is to fall for the postmodern deception that marketing is all, and one may pick and mix theology and spirituality with impunity.

Disestablishment may not be ‘the end of the world’, but it would be the Church of England’s Armageddon.

And the Roman Catholics are divided on this. The most moderate see that it is ‘unfair’ in a modern democracy to discriminate against Roman Catholics, but they are content to endure a little residual anti-Catholicism in order to sustain a Christian expression at the heart of government. It is not ideal, and it may all have a very shaky foundation, yet it is the English tradition. But the extremists and reactionaries demand repeal of those foundational Acts which perpetuate this injustice, and are wholly in favour of constitutional vandalism if it would end the perpetuation of the Protestant Crown (albeit Anglo-Catholic, or God-knows-what in the imminent reign of George VII).

The Catholic extremists have more zeal than sense. They dismiss those who support the Act of Settlement as ‘bigots’, and harp on about Anglican orthodoxy as being ‘anti-Papist’. They might recognise the irreconcilable tension in having a Roman Catholic Monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England, but they offer no solution. Presumably, since Anglican Orders are 'absolutely null and utterly void', the Pope or the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminister would need to officiate at the coronation of a Catholic monarch, yet they do not address the theological or political implications of this. They may find it ‘insulting’ that the Monarch may not even marry a Roman Catholic, but they never address the undeniable fact that not only may the Pope not marry a Protestant, he may not marry at all. And they are mute upon the Catholic requirement to raise one’s children in that faith, which would then create an exclusively Roman Catholic royal house, to the discriminatory exclusion of all others.

Both the Queen of the United Kingdom and the King of the Vatican are heads of state, and both positions place certain limitations upon their liberties. Why accept the constraints of the latter if those of the former are ‘insulting’ or ‘unfair’? The occupant of each throne, with the grace of God, accepts the limitations imposed by their respective offices. And if this is not a vocation, they are at liberty not to accede to their thrones or to abdicate.

The wisest English Roman Catholics recognise that the Establishment of the Church of England - and the retention of those foundational Acts which sustain its position and that of the Protestant Crown-in-Parliament - are beneficial to the nation. The moment one seeks to undo one thread of the intricate quilt which is our Constitution – such as the Act of Settlement 1701 – this fragile and priceless work of art will unravel.

The disestablishment of the Church of England would eliminate that residual expression of Christianity from our nation which is cultural. Certainly, it may not save souls, but it is a bulwark against those politico-religious forces which are gathering to fill the void. And Cranmer is not only talking of aggressive secularism. Militant Islam is knocking at the door, and its 95 theses have already been sent to Downing Street. And Downing Street has listened and granted a number of Shari’a-compliant exemptions from the laws of England & Wales even though they are manifestly inimical to the principles of Christianity and liberal democracy. And they have done so because they fear the consequences of not doing so.

The gradual erosion of Christian expression from the public square has already damaged the social fabric of the nation. Morality is relative, values are negotiable, norms are no longer normative, and trust has been destroyed. This has led inexorably to the obscuring of human dignity, the elimination of the notion of the sanctity of life, and the obfuscation of the true meaning of freedom which was derived from the Bible's teaching that man is made in the image of God; that all are equal and may approach him directly.

The break with Rome is central to the history of England, and the schism lies at the very heart of Britain’s development as a modern nation. It should be remembered and celebrated – even on November 5th – by all Christians, for it is a reminder that the nation is vulnerable and prone to attack from without and within. A liberal democracy certainly ought to grant minorities the freedom to practise their religion. But this does not involve the diminution or destruction of the majority faith which is the one by which minorities are granted the liberties they enjoy and by which they freely worship.

The fusion of the Church of England with Monarchy and Parliament has yielded three centuries of religious tolerance and political stability; it has carved out what is unique about English identity, English civilisation and English values. Protestantism is not ‘equal’ with other faiths; its contribution to public life has been immense – spiritually, socially and economically. To disestablish the Church of England would be to abandon the rock upon which the English edifice is constructed.

It is no surprise that this amoral Labour Government wishes to destroy this foundation. And neither is it any great surprise that some Roman Catholic journalists and prelates or Anglican clerics seek to do so. But Conservatives?

As Hugh Gaitskell once said (and Mr Hannan will appreciate): “You may say ‘let it end'. But my goodness, it is a decision that needs a little care and thought.”

Your Grace, I agree with so much that you've written here but I can't help but think that the relativistic tendencies inherent in Anglicanism have themselves contributed to our national decline. The Established Church (lacking any central authority) offers, at best, a vapid response to the challenges of this post-Christian era.

+Cranmer, just a technical point. Catholics are not, as you stated, obliged to raise their children in the Catholic faith. In a marriage between a Catholic and a non-Catholic (if you'll forgive the term) the Catholic party is asked to do what they can to raise the children in the Catholic faith only insofar as it does not endanger the marriage itself. The Catholic Church's view is that the marriage is of primary importance. It would prefer if the children were raised as Catholics, but it is not an obligation.

Ne Temere, which placed the obligation on the Catholic party in a mixed marriage to raise their children in the Catholic faith, was replaced in 1970 by Matrimonia Mixta, which removed that obligation.

His Grace is most appreciative of your clarification. But what of 'non-mixed' marriages, since 'mixed marriages' are certainly discouraged, and it might be asserted with scriptural injunction - 1Cor 6:14f cf Deut 22:10?

From the perpective of tabloid journalism, a 'good Catholic' monarch would need to marry another Catholic. It would be unthinkable for the Catholic King or Queen of the United Kingdom to marry a non-Catholic, for such would create all manner of tensions. The children of a wholly Catholic union would certainly need to be raised as Catholics.

While Cranmer has no problem with this for private individuals, the implications for the British Constitution and for the Church of England are immense. And the requirement does not address that 'equality' issue.

I always think it's a bad idea to live one's life on the basis of how it might be perceived in the tabloid press. My point merely was that there is nothing within the teaching of the Catholic Church as it currently stands for a Catholic to marry a Protestant and for the children of that marriage to be raised as Protestants. That applies to the so called greatest and least in society. If, however, a monarch in the United Kingdom were to marry a Catholic, I would have presumed that the tabloid pressure, such as it is, would have been for the children to be raised in the Anglican faith.

As for the equality issue I'm afraid that I don't see it as being an issue. The Pope is first and foremost a priest of the Catholic Church. As such he freely chose a life of celibacy. He made a free and informed decision to do so. Each priest is made manifestly aware that there is an obligation in the Catholic Church for Latin rite priests to be celibate. No one forces them to accept ordination. They chose it for themselves. Some are happy to live that way, others struggle, in the same way that there are happy and unhappy marriages. The Pope freely chose not to be married. The Queen freely chose to marry, but was not free to marry anyone she chose. Therein lies the difference.

However, for the record, I have no difficulty with the Act of Settlement, and see no need for its repeal.

John said;Thank you Cranmer, for spelling out what so many have confused.The Church of England is, at heart, not a priveleged denomination, but an obligation to serve the nation. Too many of its adherents have been seduced by consumerism to think that membership is about "getting". Disestablishment would just remove what little salt is presently being applied to an unsavoury national life.

I can't imagine that most Catholics are desperate for the repeal of the Act of Settlement. Most of us are probably much more concerned about the profoundly anti-Christian laws being passed by this government as well as the militant utilitarianism driving our media, educational establishment and political classes.

I sense that it's going to become more difficult to be a practising Christian in the UK. Disestablishing the CoE would make things worse for all Christians - including Catholics.

This government makes my blood boil. It is a perfect example of what Chesterton described as "...the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about."

'The demise of the Church of England has been predicted before, but the LambethConference will be the gathering for the funeral. So worn out and miserable is thechurch today that no one will bother to stay on for the baked meats.Archbishop Peter Akinola, the Primate of Uganda, says: “There is no longer any hopefor unified communion.” Traditionalist bishops will not even attend the LambethConference which is run by the modernising tendency that has destroyed the Churchof England.According to the newspapers, the causes of this final schism are the modernisingtendency’s acceptance of homosexuals and women as bishops. But these are onlypretexts, the last rips in a shroud that has been moth-eaten for a generation.The rot began in the 1960s when, rather than confront the secularising movements inwestern society, the churches cheerfully embraced it. Then the church diluted itsdoctrines, ditched the best version of the Bible and discarded The Book of CommonPrayer.The magnificent cadences of the English Bible were replaced by the doggerel of newversions and the services which many people still knew by heart were thrown out infavour of modern liturgies so banal they are laughable. Because the new words wouldnot fit the old tunes, the 500 years tradition of English church music was discarded infavour of jogging-for-Jesus settings by tin-eared trendiesThe wound was inflicted suddenly, viciously. I can put a precise date on it – March1963. Bishop J.A.T Robinson published his fabulously hyped paperback Honest toGod and claimed “Our image of God must go.” Soon the shops were full of fiveshillings books by leading churchmen denying the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection andthe Gospel miracles.The debunking of traditional faith was accompanied by the abandonment of morality.Chapter six of Honest to God smashed the Ten Commandments and replaced themwith what Robinson called “situation ethics” which redefined morals as “doing theloving thing in the situation in which you find yourself.” This meant doing as youdamn well liked.We supported the decriminalisation of homosexuality, for it was wrong for menacting consensually in private to imprisoned for their sexual proclivities. We neverimagined this would lead to today’s obscene open air pantomime of Gay Pride – thelove that dare not speaking its name now shrieking at us in high camp along the highstreet, and sodomy accorded the same moral weight as Christian marriage.Abortion law “reform” would, they said, put an end to distressing back-streetabortions. No one thought this would result in abortion as a form of contraception -190,000 destroyed foetuses last year. The church welcomed the “reforms” andrejoiced in them as “the new morality.” In fact it was the beginning of thedemoralising of the nation, the first excited steps down into the antinomian sewer wenow inhabit.What was once a mortal sin is now only a lifestyle choice.The church authorities have caved in. The Church has resigned. We have beenpenetrated by the ideas that are working against us.They have surrendered to the new regime of democracy, universal rights, diversity,and the moral relativism which can no longer distinguish between right and wrong.Libertarianism will not do. We have Commandments from God, few in number butvery specific.It is not too much to say that the church which should preach Christ has becomeAntichrist. The modernisers’ church has collapsed because the people in the pewswere instinctively conservative. They could not abide the destruction of their belovedchurch by the trendy hierarchy among the bishops and in the Synod. And so theyvoted with their feet.So what will happen next? The church will not split neatly in two. Individualcongregations will make their own arrangements.I am not without hope. At least the tomfoolery we have endured these last forty yearshas been revealed for the failure and disgrace it always was. I recall something T.S.Eliot said just before the Second World War:“For the immediate future, perhaps for a long way ahead, continuity may have to bemaintained by a very small number of people indeed.”And I keep saying my prayers – traditional version.'

I have never met any Catholic in this country interested in this issue - not at primary school with the good Nuns, nor at grammar school with the Jesuits, nor at University, nor from the pulpit.The issue is not discussed after Mass on Sundays in parish halls.

I havent noticed a call for disestablishment in the Catholic press. Even if some have done, surely you would recognise this as mischevious - part of the scribbler trade.

The Anglican Church is doing a thorough job itself of tearing itself apart over issues like gay Bishops and Women Bishops. By the time the next monarch is crowned, perhaps by an Archbishopess of Canterbury, your Grace's representative on Earth might have swum the Tiber himself.

"TUESDAY, DECEMBER 23, 2008The Conservative case for the Established Church of EnglandCranmer has received numerous emails asking him to respond to Daniel Hannan MEP, who purports to make ‘the conservative case for disestablishment’. He was not going to, not least because this is the time of year when one should be full of good cheer, and the time to deeply appreciate the wonder of Christmas and the gift of the Church. But the reality is that there is such a dearth of non-nominal Anglicans (yes, Cranmer could have said ‘committed’, ‘dedicated’ or ‘believing’) on the Conservative benches that Mr Cameron ought to consider making them an approved-list priority along with the one-legged Muslim lesbians who will contribute so much to Westminster.

The Labour vultures of disestablishment are circling above the ashen English Church and fiercely advocate euthanasia to end its suffering. And none less than the Archbishop of Canterbury declares that it would be ‘by no means the end of the world if the Establishment disappears’. Into this destabilising fusion of Labour’s propensity for constitutional vandalism, the Archbishop’s ignorance of history and the Church’s theological ineptitude, Mr Hannan makes a small ‘c’ case for for small ‘c’ conservatives to support the Prime Minister’s continuation of Tony Blair’s ‘Year Zero’ agenda for the British Constitution. And his reasoning is essentially that the nationalisation of airlines, car manufacturers and banks has historically yielded nothing but complacency and inefficiency. Ergo the complacency and inefficiency of the Church of England is a product of its nationalisation.

This is too superficial an analysis and too dangerous a generalisation for any true Tory (or Whig) to make at this time.

It is wrong to assert, as Mr Hannan does, that ‘hostility to organised religion in general, and to the primacy of the Church of England in particular, is in the DNA of the British Left’. There are many on the Right who habitually deride the Church of England and earn their living by ridiculing its bishops and archbishops. They chant their sectarianism from the sidelines like Celtic fans, and blame the bishops for a lack of clear leadership. Yet where there is Anglican orthodoxy, it is derided for being ‘anti-Catholic’. Such hostility is much more deeply engrained in the DNA of some of the Roman Catholic Right who have a pathological loathing of the consequences of the Reformation and the ensuing via media of the Church of England than it is for anyone of the political Left to pontificate with their here-today gone-tomorrow crass agenda for ‘equality’.

Mr Hannan is persuaded that disestablishment is a Thatcherite pursuit, for it will create a ‘free market of denominations’ such that churches will ‘compete for congregations.’ And thus ‘those congregations in turn compete to raise their ministers' salaries’ resulting in full pews because ‘people are often more loyal to what they have chosen than to what they have been allocated’."

Although we hear much of the decline fo the Church of/in England, we cannot remind ourselves too much that at the last Census 70% of the population chose to describe themselves as Christian.

How they are to be supported, falls into two possibilities. We can have a "private club" mentality of the gathered church comprising those of one's own opinion and taste ( and they can and do exist)or the National Church which is extremely diverse, and which accepts a country wide responsibility to be there for everyone, committed, passing through, or merely curious.

The Established Church has an absolute duty to baptise and bury anyone ( though some pocket popes make the former difficult). As such we are the default church for those with no other ties - and long may that continue.

If you counted the congregation at my chuch on a typical Sunday you would get but a small snapshot of what is happening and be unable to grasp what it means to what we call our "hinterland" of many who pass through in any given week - and particularly at Christmas and other festivals.

You will find schools, nurseries and toddlers worshipping at other times: Sunday is not always a good time for families to worship and we are moving to recognise that. There will be many bereaved at special services, the Hospice is associated with us, as is the Royal Marine Association, who congregate from far afield. Uniformed cubs/brownies,periodically appear as do regular baptisms and well attended funerals - sometimes with hundreds of mourners when a traveller family turns to us for support in their time of need.

In the last year I have lost count of the country's whose citizens have joined us at various times but they include Nigerian Botswana Poland Latvia USA Canada Sierra Leone, India.

According to the profile of the diocese, we are an average Church in a provincial town.

We are just opening our Church daily to give some space for those in need of quiet time in a busy world.

Where will these people go when the Government decrees that the national church is no longer open to all comers?

The narrow lives of the chattering classes do not always intersect with those of the ordinary person who has no great taste for more tinkering with our country's traditional strength.

While you religionists(if that is a word) argue amongst yourselves, satan is preparing the way for the one world religion.I see it rather like helmsman arguing about who would like to steer the Titanic!The final battle I believe will be between organised religion and Jesus Christ.The only thing that counts is being born again, a new creature, a member of The Body of Christ.ps.I class social secular humanism, communism, and fascism as religions, the religions of man.

Roman Catholics, and I am one, should recognise the importance to the future of Christianity in this country of the continued existence of the C of E as the Established Church. There is much that is wonderful and holy about the C of E and we must remember that what sperates us is infinitely less imortant than the dangers posed by the powerful antiChristian forces in our society.Suggestions about disestablishment on the grounds of fairness are the familiar smokescreen of Satan. The real agenda is the disappearance of Christianity.As a RC I can live with a bit of unfairness rather than enter the dangers of secularism destoying the faith in this country. PS Sorry we were so unpleasant to you.As an RC I can live with a bit of unfairness. The alternative

@Your GraceMr Grumpy Old Catholic is right the politicians you refer to should not be taken as representative of papists as a whole but we will smile to ourselves when Anglicans complain about constitutional vandalism (what else was the English 'Reformation'?) and selling off abbeys - if the CofE were to be disestablished shouldn't Westminster Abbey be given back to the Benedictines?

Your Grace,Dan Hannan's post represents clear evidence that some strands of the Conservative Party are still obsessed with markets to the exclusion of everything else. I do agree that much of the cause of the CoE's present situation started in the 1960@s (in which I was a teenager)But the Church's Leaders themselves have aggravated the situation with their craven capitulation to "current morality" every time I.e, as an earlier correspondent said "do as you Damn well like!! If someone like, say Bishop Nazir-Ali, was AoCthen I am sure he could address the current problems and external threats - he is, uniquely I believe amongst CoE Bishops, well experienced about the militant Islamic menance. The present Government seeks to extirpate all Christianity in the public sphere and if they succeed it will be replaced by rampant secularism and/or militant Islam - the first being required by, and the second tolerated by, Brussels. As if there wern't more important things for the Government to be dealing with !! Finally may I wish you the compliments of the Season and a fruitful New Year

Funny how secularist/commie/RC businesses require that employees adhere to the party line: or be prevented from working ever again!!!

That line is, of course, Deconstructionist of everything dear to the erstwhile Un-enslaved British and English: Freedom of thought, speech, and action (within God's Law).

I say all this 'blather' (as someone said) about it and about is part of euSSR cultural invasion and policy of 'divide and conquer' [and how archaic is THAT!]. Like pornography [and how archaic is THAT!] and other media pap, it's intended to keep our tiny non-neurones busy and full of 'jouissance' - while our """Superiors [joke]""" - the invaders - get on unhindered with amassing Power and Money [and how archaic is THAT!].

In short - it's a Red Herring preceding the Devouring of All Opposition by the Big Red Sharks.

But, I say again (as someone else has today), the reasons many of us don't go to church are not that we are secularist; or want to be RC or Puritan; or to have a boring shoolyard scrap about it all. It's that they've taken away the words and music and meaning that matter to us.

So, is Antichrist here? Manifest by Chaos not order? By the death of Music? By wyrd not Domes-daeg? By words not Word?

Maybe, at long last, he is. And that means He soon will be. Sound the Trumpets!!! Bang the Brasses!!!

Why would anybody want to remain a 'controversial' member of the Junior House which has neither democracy nor tradition as credentials ?We all know that Parliament itself is increasingly impotent in the face of Brusells ( note how it was used to bounce P.Mandelson back into unelected power ).

I am surprised that lefties have not tried to impose quotas of other communities within The Lords; Muslims, Hindus, Yardies/Rastafari, Druids etc. in the name of equality and I, though only nominally C. of E., would rather 'my ' Bishops bailed out before that happened.Incidentally, I have no problem with those of other faiths being members of The Lords on their own supposed merit just not as some crooked egalitarian sham.

Can we dis-establish the BBC first ? I do hate funding a State Broadcaster which behaves like a State Church - especially when an Established Church does NOT receive taxpayer funding.

The thought of dis-established churches being exempt from taxation as in the USA is alluring - and then using satellite TV to create a hardline Protestant denomination to take over the Conservative Party and reform the polity could have its attractions.

I am surprised politicians want to lose influence over the toothless C of E and replace it with a revolutionary Protestantism which will turn their complacent lives upside down. James I could hardly hold Presbyterianism at bay and his son was a complete disaster in preventing Dis-Establishment of the Church of England

Hegel anyone?Thesis: the fourteenth century church in the West.Anti thesis: the Protestant reformation.Synthesis: the modern Roman Catholic Church?

The problem with Anglicanism seemed to me, when I was an ordained member of the same, to be that it represents the English only. It doesn't work when you go to, say Spain or Scotland or Morocco.The modern (international) Roman Catholic church does work there. It even works in places like Thailand. Excellent priests are being imported into England from South India; we absorbed the Eastern Europeans with pleasure.As a High churchman, I find little in the post Vatican II Roman Catholic Church to upset me and a lot to inspire me. In worship it is, actually, remarkably like the Anglican Church in which my father served as a clergyman, and to the Imperial Church in which I was brought up.Please don't mess up the C of E though - I still have a modest pension to claim!In twenty years time, I suggest that the monarchy will be in much the same position as, say, the Bavarian monarchy was in the German Empire of 1900 (or 1940?) as we enter Europe, and the Church of England, perhaps, will be in about the same position as, say, the Prussian Lutherans were at the start of the last century too? They may (or may not) exist, but the emphasis will have shifted.The Roman Catholic Church, however, being international, will probably remain in about the same state as it is at the moment.

Of course, the leftists are not particularly bothered about the C of E per se; disestablishment, for them, is merely a means to further weaken the British Constitution; the death of Her Majesty, long may it be postponed, will be the signal for a massive re-alignment and destruction of the historic role of the crown as the embodiment of the rights of the British people; our concept that sovereignty is owned by the people is one that Brussels finds particularly loathsome; their concept is that sovereignty rests with governments, 'people who matter', and that we may be graciously allowed a share in it from time to time. Then we will be granted a written constitution which will allow us all the freedom in the world to do exactly what the government tell us to do.This is a process which has not only already started, but is well on the way to completion. Have a look at Guido's website, order-order.com to see the sorts of things that are happening now. I thought that secret orders in secret courts went out when Herr Himmler swallowed his cyanide pill.

About His Grace:

Archbishop Cranmer takes as his inspiration the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby: ‘It’s interesting,’ he observes, ‘that nowadays politicians want to talk about moral issues, and bishops want to talk politics.’ It is the fusion of the two in public life, and the necessity for a wider understanding of their complex symbiosis, which leads His Grace to write on these very sensitive issues.

Cranmer's Law:

"It hath been found by experience that no matter how decent, intelligent or thoughtful the reasoning of a conservative may be, as an argument with a liberal is advanced, the probability of being accused of ‘bigotry’, ‘hatred’ or ‘intolerance’ approaches 1 (100%).”

Follow His Grace on

The cost of His Grace's conviction:

His Grace's bottom line:

Freedom of speech must be tolerated, and everyone living in the United Kingdom must accept that they may be insulted about their own beliefs, or indeed be offended, and that is something which they must simply endure, not least because some suffer fates far worse. Comments on articles are therefore unmoderated, but do not necessarily reflect the views of Cranmer. Comments that are off-topic, gratuitously offensive, libelous, or otherwise irritating, may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on any thread does not constitute their endorsement by Cranmer; it may simply be that he considers them to be intelligent and erudite contributions to religio-political discourse...or not.

The Anglican Communion has no peculiar thought, practice, creed or confession of its own. It has only the Catholic Faith of the ancient Catholic Church, as preserved in the Catholic Creeds and maintained in the Catholic and Apostolic constitution of Christ's Church from the beginning.Dr Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1945-1961

British Conservatism's greatest:

The epithet of 'great' can be applied only to those who were defining leaders who successfully articulated and embodied the Conservatism of their age. They combined in their personal styles, priorities and policies, as Edmund Burke would say, 'a disposition to preserve' with an 'ability to improve'.

I am in politics because of the conflict between good and evil, and I believe that in the end good will triumph.Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher LG, OM, PC, FRS.(Prime Minister 1979-1990)

We have not overthrown the divine right of kings to fall down for the divine right of experts.Harold Macmillan, 1st Earl of Stockton, OM, PC.(Prime Minister 1957-1963)

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.Sir Winston Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, FRS, PC (Can).(Prime Minister 1940-1945, 1951-1955)

I am not struck so much by the diversity of testimony as by the many-sidedness of truth.Stanley Baldwin, 1st Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, KG, PC.(Prime Minister 1923-1924, 1924-1929, 1935-1937)

If you believe the doctors, nothing is wholesome; if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent; if you believe the military, nothing is safe.Robert Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, KG, GCVO, PC.(Prime Minister 1885-1886, 1886-1892, 1895-1902)

I am a Conservative to preserve all that is good in our constitution, a Radical to remove all that is bad. I seek to preserve property and to respect order, and I equally decry the appeal to the passions of the many or the prejudices of the few.Benjamin Disraeli KG, PC, FRS, Earl of Beaconsfield.(Prime Minister 1868, 1874-1880)

Public opinion is a compound of folly, weakness, prejudice, wrong feeling, right feeling, obstinacy, and newspaper paragraphs.Sir Robert Peel, Bt.(Prime Minister 1834-1835, 1841-1846)

I consider the right of election as a public trust, granted not for the benefit of the individual, but for the public good.Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool.(Prime Minister 1812-1827)

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.The Rt Hon. William Pitt, the Younger.(Prime Minister 1783-1801, 1804-1806)